Those who allow to make public episodes without authorization can be sanctioned
In Igaming and online game
A ruling of the Court of Cassation confirms who the flexible sanction subjects are because they allow you to make online games in the absence of certain requirements.
Whoever allows, in public places or open to the public, to carry out online games in the absence of the prescribed authorization measures, regardless of the nature of the game made, It is passable of sanctionnull To confirm it is The Court of Cassation in the sentence with which he responds to the appeal of the owner of a games room against the injunction order with which The Customs and Monopolies Agency He had imposed on him an administrative sanction for the violation of art. 110, paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 9 bis of the Tulps. The owner, in fact, had installed or in any case made available in his room used as a game room, Six video terminal devices does not respond to the characteristics and requirements referred to in art. 110, paragraph 6 lett. B.
The Cassation, in its motivation, recalled that the Milan Court of Appeal considered:
“The disputed violation existing, noting that from the assessment carried out it was found that The installed appliances allow the connection with an electronic remote games collection platformnull With them it was possible to access games with cash win (such as Poker Texas Hold'em), online betting (such as lot, scratch cards) and games with virtual rollers such as Slot Machines and that such appliances they were not connected to the electronic network referred to in art. 14 bis DPR 640 of 1972, they were devoid of the identification code verification/videolottery, and did not observe the requirements referred to in the AAMS Directorial Decree (now Adm. Editor's note) of 22 February 2010 ".
In the appeal, reference was made to the contested decision to have applied the legislation intended for gambling also to that of the Skill Games and Pdc-Pvr, which instead are - according to the defense - Distance skill games with cash winning.
For the last degree of judgment of justice, however, The reason appears inadmissiblenull Based on what was decreed, one is introduced New sanctioning hypothesis which punishes anyone, in public places or open to the public, to carry out online games in the absence of the prescribed authorization measures, regardless of the nature of the game made“.
They were thus rejected by the judges of the Cassation I First four reasons for appeal presented by the owner of the game room, while The fifth was acceptednull The complaint shows that:
"The violation or false application of art. 3 Law no. 689 of 1981, censoring the decision for not having examined the reason for appeal with which the party reiterated the defensive deduction regarding the non -existence of the subjective element of the violation, omitting any evaluation of the concrete circumstances adduced to demonstrate that he had put in place the sanctioned conduct on the basis of a justified custody about his legitimacy ".
The ruling of the Cassation highlights how:
“The defect of omitted pronunciation denounced by the reason emerges, not having the territorial court examined the censorship with which the act of appeal complained that the lack of the subjective element of the violation had not been recognized disputed. The sentence is therefore dismissed in relation to the accepted motif and the case postponed to another section of the Milan Court of Appeal ".